MLS Fixes, Part 1: Team Names and Logos
About week ago, David Beckham's Miami MLS expansion team unveiled their name and logo: Club Internacional de Fútbol Miami. (a.k.a. Inter Miami, a.k.a. Inter Miami C.F.) Here's their new logo as well:
Inter Milan exists. And have existed as a major team in Italy (not a Latino nation, by the way) for, oh, 110 years.
Say them back to back. "Inter Miami, Inter Milan". Try searching the name on your computer or phone. From a glance they are basically indistinguishable. This will almost CERTAINLY cause accidental clicks on Milan's name about 50% of the time. That's the last thing you need when you start an expansion team.
But this isn't just relevant to Miami. This is relevant to a ton of teams in the MLS. Real Salt Lake. Sporting Kansas City. The overflow of "F.C."s and "United"s. By the way, RSL's name is far worse. Naming your team after a Spanish giant in a city where there is virtually no Latinos, or anyone of Spanish descent for that matter. The main issue I'm trying to point out here is distinction. I get they're trying to reach out and be seen as elite by their names. But they don't stand apart from the field. Americans like to stand apart. And we like to be the best at it. That's why MLS teams should stick to the mascot naming formula of North America.
Look at the Seattle Sounders. The Portland Timbers. The Vancouver Whitecaps. These are AWESOME names! Historical? Yes. But still great. They aren't corny (Tampa Bay Rowdies of the old NASL comes to mind.), not long, but most importantly, they STAND OUT.
Now I'm not saying they should revert back to the late '90s and bring those names back. They were too corny. Except the Galaxy, the Revolution, D.C. United, and the Rapids. Those get a thumbs up from me. Now some teams do sound good with United and S.C.. But those should be kept at a minimum. And also when they make sense. (see D.C. United and Minnesota United F.C.) But Atlanta United? It phonetically sounds good, but where's the meaning?
Now for the logos. I do like the designs of badges from some teams. But once again, let's get creative and stand out, while still looking sharp! We could look to the past for this as well:
Creative and distinctive. Obviously could use some modernization but they still look good for most MLS teams. Some teams do admittedly look better with badges, but only in two situations. One, where the team has been wearing them in the middle of successful runs. (Sounders, Toronto F.C.) Then two, if a team has one of the acceptable European names. (D.C. United, Orlando City S.C.)
All in all, this logo/name rundown may seem like something small and maybe insignificant. However, it is literally the first impression for a team. Usually before players are signed. And when a new team name is revealed in the MLS, it's usually a big deal in the sports world. And it's time to take advantage of that big stage and present something strong, unique, and taken seriously.
Now let's be honest, that logo kicks some serious ass. The name? Not hitting the best nerve. I get where they were going though. A lot of Latinos live in Miami. The name is a clear grab at the demographic. And I would have gone after that market too with the name. Just not that damn long. People generally grasp names that are shorter and easy to communicate as their primary names.
Oh, and there's another big one:
Say them back to back. "Inter Miami, Inter Milan". Try searching the name on your computer or phone. From a glance they are basically indistinguishable. This will almost CERTAINLY cause accidental clicks on Milan's name about 50% of the time. That's the last thing you need when you start an expansion team.
But this isn't just relevant to Miami. This is relevant to a ton of teams in the MLS. Real Salt Lake. Sporting Kansas City. The overflow of "F.C."s and "United"s. By the way, RSL's name is far worse. Naming your team after a Spanish giant in a city where there is virtually no Latinos, or anyone of Spanish descent for that matter. The main issue I'm trying to point out here is distinction. I get they're trying to reach out and be seen as elite by their names. But they don't stand apart from the field. Americans like to stand apart. And we like to be the best at it. That's why MLS teams should stick to the mascot naming formula of North America.
Look at the Seattle Sounders. The Portland Timbers. The Vancouver Whitecaps. These are AWESOME names! Historical? Yes. But still great. They aren't corny (Tampa Bay Rowdies of the old NASL comes to mind.), not long, but most importantly, they STAND OUT.
Now I'm not saying they should revert back to the late '90s and bring those names back. They were too corny. Except the Galaxy, the Revolution, D.C. United, and the Rapids. Those get a thumbs up from me. Now some teams do sound good with United and S.C.. But those should be kept at a minimum. And also when they make sense. (see D.C. United and Minnesota United F.C.) But Atlanta United? It phonetically sounds good, but where's the meaning?
Now for the logos. I do like the designs of badges from some teams. But once again, let's get creative and stand out, while still looking sharp! We could look to the past for this as well:
Creative and distinctive. Obviously could use some modernization but they still look good for most MLS teams. Some teams do admittedly look better with badges, but only in two situations. One, where the team has been wearing them in the middle of successful runs. (Sounders, Toronto F.C.) Then two, if a team has one of the acceptable European names. (D.C. United, Orlando City S.C.)
All in all, this logo/name rundown may seem like something small and maybe insignificant. However, it is literally the first impression for a team. Usually before players are signed. And when a new team name is revealed in the MLS, it's usually a big deal in the sports world. And it's time to take advantage of that big stage and present something strong, unique, and taken seriously.
Comments
Post a Comment